From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rui.zhang@intel.com, harbour@sfinx.od.ua, pavel@ucw.cz,
rjw@sisk.pl
Subject: Re: + pm-introduce-new-interfaces-schedule_work_on-and-queue_work_on.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:19:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080722161900.GA17601@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080712162149.GD603@tv-sign.ru>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:49PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> (Gautham cc'ed)
>
Sorry for the delay... I'm a bit tied down to other things until aug
20th :(
> On 07/11, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Subject: pm: introduce new interfaces schedule_work_on() and queue_work_on()
> > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> >
> > This interface allows adding a job on a specific cpu.
> >
> > Although a work struct on a cpu will be scheduled to other cpu if the cpu
> > dies, there is a recursion if a work task tries to offline the cpu it's
> > running on. we need to schedule the task to a specific cpu in this case.
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10897
>
> So, this is used in http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16707
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/power/poweroff.c 2008-06-30 16:01:35.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/power/poweroff.c 2008-07-03 10:50:05.000000000 +0800
> @@ -25,7 +25,8 @@
>
> static void handle_poweroff(int key, struct tty_struct *tty)
> {
> - schedule_work(&poweroff_work);
> + /* run sysrq poweroff on boot cpu */
> + schedule_work_on(first_cpu(cpu_online_map), &poweroff_work);
> }
>
> static struct sysrq_key_op sysrq_poweroff_op = {
>
> A couple of silly questions, I don't understand the low-level details.
>
> This patch (and kernel_power_off() afaics) assumes that the boot cpu
> can't be cpu_down()'ed. Is it true in general? For example, grep shows
> that arch/s390/kernel/smp.c:topology_init()->smp_add_present_cpu()
> sets ->hotpluggable = 1 for all present CPUs?
I tried this on a Power system sometime back and I was able to
offline CPU0. What I am not sure however, is
if that was the boot-cpu.
On x86, I do remember reading somewhere why we cannot offline
CPU0.
/me searches.
Yes, in arch/x86/kernel/topology.c
int __ref arch_register_cpu(int num)
{
/*
* CPU0 cannot be offlined due to several
* restrictions and assumptions in kernel. This basically
* doesnt add a control file, one cannot attempt to offline
* BSP.
*
* Also certain PCI quirks require not to enable hotplug control
* for all CPU's.
*/
if (num)
per_cpu(cpu_devices, num).cpu.hotpluggable = 1;
return register_cpu(&per_cpu(cpu_devices, num).cpu, num);
}
>
> Another question. I can't understand why first_cpu(cpu_online_map) is
> always the boot CPU on every arch. IOW, shouldn't boot_cpu_init() set
> some "boot_cpu = smp_processor_id()" which should be use instead of
> first_cpu(cpu_online_map) ?
>
Not very sure about this one.
> Thanks,
>
> Oleg.
>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-22 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200807111846.m6BIkeTj031024@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-12 15:32 ` [PATCH] pm-introduce-new-interfaces-schedule_work_on-and-queue_work_on-cleanup Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-12 15:35 ` [PATCH] workqueues: queue_work() can use queue_work_on() Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-12 15:45 ` [PATCH] workqueues: schedule_on_each_cpu() can use schedule_work_on() Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-12 16:21 ` + pm-introduce-new-interfaces-schedule_work_on-and-queue_work_on.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-22 16:19 ` Gautham R Shenoy [this message]
2008-07-24 12:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-25 1:17 ` Zhang Rui
2008-07-25 9:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-08-05 19:57 ` Pavel Machek
2008-08-06 12:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080722161900.GA17601@in.ibm.com \
--to=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=harbour@sfinx.od.ua \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox